HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 635 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellants under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Bulandshahr in 2nd Bail Application No. 6213 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 553 of 2020, under Sections 147, 149, 452, 302, 506 IPC and section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S. Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahr. 3. The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that the daughter of the informant was set ablaze by pouring petrol by accused persons Sanjay Banwari, Badan Singh, Veer Singh, Jaswant Singh, Gautam and Kajal in the house of the informant when he was not present at home and his son Sunil Kumar was taking bath. Earlier rape was committed with the said daughter of the informant and a criminal case was registered and the accused persons were pressurizing the informant to make compromise in the said case. FIR was lodged and investigation started, which culminated into charge sheet. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the whole prosecution story is false and concocted as during course of investigation no cogent evidence was collected by the I.O. against the present accused. It is further submitted that there is no independent witness of the incident and it is totally false to say that the accused and other co-accused persons were in any way making pressure upon the informant for compromise in the earlier criminal case. It is also submitted that the applicants are the native of another village and the eyewitness Sunil Kumar in his Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Sanjay .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not named the present appellants as one of the assailants in this case. It is also submitted that as per post mortem report it was a case of 95% burn and in that condition the deceased, when she was alive, was not in a condition to speak anything before the doctor but the prosecution has procured a false and fabricated dying declaration of the deceased which cannot be relied upon at all. It is further submitted that when the deceased was alive and brought to the hospital it was told to the doctor that she herself set her ablaze. It is further submitted that the appellants have no criminal history to their credit. 5. Further submission is that the appellant is in jail since 11.01.2021 and the trial has yet not been concluded. 6. Learned AGA on the other hand opposed the bail and submitted that this is the second bail application moved on behalf of the appellant. There is no fresh grounds taken by the appellant. The submission raised by the appellant has already been considered by the court while rejecting the first bail application. It is further submitted that the plea of the period of long incarceration, the Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that the second bail application can only be entertained if there are fresh grounds or events which have been emerged after disposal of the first bail application. The Apex Court has also turned down the plea of the period of long incarceration in jail. 7. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the record, it is apparent that this is the second bail application on behalf of the appellant. 8. The first bail application of the appellant was rejected on merits by this court, after taking into consideration the entire material on record and the present application does not disclose any fresh ground which has emerged subsequent to the rejection of the earlier bail application. The contentions sought to be raised on behalf of the appellant pertain to appreciation of evidence, credibility of the dying declaration and reliability of witnesses, which are all matters to be tested during trial and cannot be gone into at this stage. 9. The argument advanced regarding the long incarceration of the appellant in jail also does not constitute a fresh ground for the purpose of entertaining the second bail application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has consistently held that successive bail applications can be entertained only when there is a change in circumstances or emergence of new grounds. Mere passage of time or long detention in jail without conclusion of trial, in serious offences of the present nature, cannot by itself be considered as a change in CRLAD No. 635 of 2025 2 circumstance warranting grant of bail. 10. The allegations against the appellant and co-accused are grave and serious in nature involving offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with provisions of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989. The offence alleged relates to setting the victim ablaze resulting in her death, and the prosecution case is based on specific allegations supported by the material collected during investigation, including the dying declaration of the deceased. 11. In view of the gravity of the offence, absence of any fresh ground, and the settled position of law governing successive bail applications, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Bulandshahr. 12. Accordingly, the present appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 13. All pending application, if any, stands disposed of. September 15, 2025 RavindraKSingh CRLAD No. 635 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad